News

Amazon MP3 drops top songs to $0.69

By Charles Starrett ● Friday, April 29, 2011

Amazon MP3 has dropped the price on a number of its top-selling songs to $0.69 each, nearly half the price of the majority of best-selling tracks on iTunes. The Los Angeles Times reports that it is unclear whether Amazon or the music labels themselves are eating the cost of the price reduction; currently discounted tracks include “Born This Way” by Lady Gaga, “On the Floor” by Jennifer Lopez, and “E.T.” by Katy Perry. As of this writing, 13 of the top 20 best-selling songs on Amazon MP3 are selling for the reduced $0.69 price, where as only one song in iTunes’ top 50—“Barbra Steisand” by Duck Sauce—is priced below $1.29, selling for $0.99. Curiously, Amazon’s move comes exactly a month after its rollout of a new Cloud Player online music service, which it launched without the consent of the major music labels.

Comments

1

More competition to make Apple strive for success! I love it.

Posted by Clint on April 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM (CDT)

1

Here is my question: Are the labels supporting this as a way to keep Apple from being such a dominant force in music downloads? The price increase from $.99 to $1.29 was a concession Apple made to move to DRM-free tracks. This was a stipulation by the labels that they wanted to be able to scale prices based on popularity.

This feels like something the labels might have helped engineer. Remember, they also allowed Amazon (and others) to offer DRM-free tracks well before they allowed Apple to do the same. But however you look at it, this power struggle between Apple and the labels is paying off for customers.

Posted by Mitch on April 30, 2011 at 11:11 AM (CDT)

1

I already bought all my music on iTunes years ago.

Posted by Dick Bacon on April 30, 2011 at 7:26 PM (CDT)

1

Considering the fact that Amazon supposedly had a falling out with the labels regarding their cloud service, it really is surprising that the labels would allow them to sell songs at that rate. Could this be Amazon selling the tracks at a “loss” to gain terrain on Apple? Could it be that they continue to pay the label whatever they paid when the songs were $0.99 and are just taking the hit for the remaining amount?

How does this bode for Apple’s soon-be-launched Cloud service? Rumors suggest that the licences have been worked out and the service should launch/ be introduced at WWDC. Maybe continuing to sell tracks at $1.29 is the compromise for procuring the licences for iCloud/ Castle.

I do not have the option of purchasing songs from either iTunes or Amazon, but as @2 said, it is helping customers.

I have always loved Amazon Service, since they are always ready to replace goods lost in transit, or goods that are defective, without me having to return the defective item.
At the same time, I love my Apple products.

So, if I ever do get the option of buying tracks online, who would I choose? Well, obviously the one who is cheaper.

Posted by Sreedhar on May 3, 2011 at 6:38 AM (CDT)

1

“How does this bode for Apple’s soon-be-launched Cloud service? Rumors suggest that the licences have been worked out and the service should launch/ be introduced at WWDC. Maybe continuing to sell tracks at $1.29 is the compromise for procuring the licences for iCloud/ Castle.”

Possibly. Although either way, whether it’s Amazon or the Labels behind it, it’s a move against Apple’s market, the cynical optimist in me hopes it’s Amazon.

Labels hold far too much power in the pricing, and maybe it’s time for a bigger player like Amazon to start breaking down what amounts to a cartel price fixing. Apple can be as spineless as they want and not take any moves without the label’s acquiescence, but maybe it’s time that someone with some economic clout pointed out to them that in a world where paid music is outnumbered 100 to 1 by shared music, the labels aren’t holding any real power and it’s time they started working with the outlets that make it possible for them to exist in a productive fashion.